You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

This is a cross-post from FQXi’s partner: NOVA’s Nature of Reality Blog.

CERN’s July 4 declaration of victory in the quest to find the Higgs particle (or something very much like it) is a many-splendored triumph. It confirms, as it completes, the Standard Model of fundamental physics. It hints at the splendid new prospect of supersymmetry while debunking rival speculations. Most...

CERN’s July 4 declaration of victory in the quest to find the Higgs particle (or something very much like it) is a many-splendored triumph. It confirms, as it completes, the Standard Model of fundamental physics. It hints at the splendid new prospect of supersymmetry while debunking rival speculations. Most fundamentally, it reaffirms our scientific faith that nature works according to precise yet humanly comprehensible laws—and, importantly, rewards our moral commitment to testing that faith rigorously.

A few months ago, when the evidence was suggestive but not yet conclusive, I discussed on NOVA's Nature of Reality blog the nature of the Higgs particle, and what its discovery would mean for the enterprise of physics. Now I will supplement that discussion, focusing on what it took to win the victory.

Physicists had to overcome three challenges to discover the Higgs particle: producing it, detecting it, and proving that they really had produced and detected it.

To put these challenges in context, let me introduce another perspective on what the Higgs particle is: The Higgs particle is "The Quantum of Ubiquitous Resistance." I’m referring here to a universe-filling medium that offers resistance to the motion of many elementary particles, thus producing what we commonly think of as their mass.

The Standard Model of physics—our best-yet model of the matter and forces that make our universe—requires, for consistency of its equations, that many of its ingredients are particles with zero mass. These particles should travel at the speed of light in empty space, but in reality, some of them—like quarks, leptons, and W and Z bosons—travel more slowly. What is slowing them down?

Our Standard Model comes equipped with a Standard Reconciliation: Space is never empty! Space is filled with a material that resists the motion of those particles. Over the past decades, physicists have deduced many of the properties of the Ubiquitous Resistance by observing its effects on the forms of matter we can see. They even gave it a name: the Higgs field. But none of the known particles had the right properties to build up the Ubiquitous Resistance. So theorists drew up the specifications for a particle that would do the job. They called it the Higgs particle.

But wishing doesn’t make it so. Only experiments can grant (or deny) theorists’ wishes. With that in mind, let us consider the three challenges facing experimental observation of the Higgs particle.

--Producing it--

Any physical material, hit hard enough, is bound to break. The smallest possible shard reveals the most basic unit of the material: its “quantum.” For the Ubiquitous Resistance, that quantum is the Higgs particle.

To break off a piece of the Ubiquitous Resistance, though, requires producing disturbances of unprecedented intensity, albeit confined to tiny volumes of space for tiny intervals of time. That is what the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is all about. By accelerating beams of protons to extremely high energy, and bringing them into collision, the LHC creates “Little Bangs” systematically.

--Detecting it--

Once you’ve produced a Higgs particle, the next challenge is to detect it. This isn’t as easy as it sounds, as the Higgs rapidly decays into other particles. We can look for those secondary particles, but most of them are useless for detection because they are produced more abundantly by other processes. The Higgs’ tiny signal competes with a cacophony of noise. The most likely mode of Higgs decay, into a bottom quarks and its antiparticle, in particular, is diluted by garden-variety strong interaction processes which produce those particles in droves.

So detection requires cunning.

Some decay processes that we might be able to detect are sketched below. Each has its own advantages and limitations, and each adds information, so experimenters have pursued them all. (For more information on the characters you’ll encounter below—W bosons, Z bosons, and the rest of the particle zoo, this is a good starting point.)

Photon pairs

(1) Photon pairs

After a Higgs particle is created, quantum fluctuations convert it into a particle-antiparticle pair, which recombines into two photons.

The observable signal, in this case, is the pair of photons emerging from the decay. From the energy and momentum of the two photons, one can reconstruct the mass of the Higgs particle. This is significant because there are many other ways to make photons in collisions at the LHC that don’t require the production and decay of Higgs particles. The Higgs signal would be swamped, if not for the redeeming feature that randomly produced photons will “add up” to indicate random masses for their hypothetical progenitors, and only by rare accident land on the Higgs particle mass, whatever it happens to be. The signature of the Higgs, then, is an excess of photon pairs in a very narrow mass range. The mass where there’s an excess is fingered as the Higgs particle mass. Since the energy and momentum of photons can be measured accurately, this method gives an excellent measurement of the Higgs particle mass.

The main limitation of this technique, besides the unavoidable background “noise,” is the fact that this decay process is quite rare compared to other possibilities.

W boson+ (Higgs -> bottom-antibottom)

(2) W boson+ (Higgs -> bottom-antibottom)

Here is one of those other possibilities: In this case, the Higgs particle is produced as a byproduct of the creation of a W boson. The W boson itself decays, but in ways that experimentalists are thoroughly familiar with, and can often identify with confidence. The presence of the W boson, itself a relatively rare occurrence, helps this class of event to stand out above the strong interaction background. Thus the most common Higgs decay, into bottom-antibottom pairs, becomes discernable when you demand an accompanying W.

There are two more possibilities:

(3) Higgs -> WW -> lepton + antilepton + neutrino + antineutrino

(4) H -> ZZ -> 2 leptons + 2 antileptons

In Processes 3 and 4, the observed particles are leptons (l), which is just another way of saying that they might be either electrons or muons, and their antiparticles; the ghostly neutrinos escape detection. The Higgs boson barely interacts with those light particles, but it can communicate with them indirectly, through fluctuations in the W and Z boson fields (a.k.a. “virtual particles”). Process 4 is special, in that it is the only case where the background is so small that individual events, as opposed to enhanced probabilities, can be ascribed with confidence to Higgs particles.

Higgs -> WW -> lepton + antilepton + neutrino + antineutrino

By measuring the rates of all of these processes, one can determine how powerfully the Higgs communicates with many different things: two gluons, two photons, two Z bosons, two W bosons, and bottom-antibottom pairs. Their different rates are logically independent, of course, but theory connects them.

--Proving it--

This is the final challenge. Finding the Higgs boson depends on assuming that the Standard Model is reliable, so we can work around the “background noise”. Here years of hard bread-and-butter work at earlier accelerators—especially the Large Electron-Positron Collider (LEP), which previously occupied the same CERN tunnel in which the LHC resides today, and the Tevatron at Fermilab, as well as at the LHC itself—pays off big. Over the years, many thousands of quantitative predictions of the Standard Model have been tested and verified. Its record is impeccable; it has earned our trust.

H -> ZZ -> 2 leptons + 2 antileptons

The next step is to search for data that the Standard Model can’t explain, like excesses of the decay products discussed earlier, and compare them against our predictions for yields from a hypothetical Higgs boson. Insofar as these quantitative predictions match the observations, which they do, one can speak of proof.

Future observations may reveal new effects, or small quantitative discrepancies in the effects already observed. (I’ll be surprised if they don’t!) But the original, simplest sketch of what The Quantum of Ubiquitous Resistance could possibly be resembles reality enough to pass muster, at least as its first draft.

Finally, I’d like to reprise the conclusion of my earlier piece, in which I considered what might happen if the hints of the Higgs did *not* pan out:

“And if not? I’ll be heartbroken. Mother Nature will have shown that Her taste is very different from mine. I don’t doubt that it’s superior, but I’ll have to struggle to understand it.”

Frank Wilczek wrote: "These particles should travel at the speed of light in empty space, but in reality, some of them - like quarks, leptons, and W and Z bosons - travel more slowly. What is slowing them down? Our Standard Model comes equipped with a Standard Reconciliation: Space is never empty! Space is filled with a material that resists the motion of those particles."

Could the Hubble redshift be regarded as evidence that something in "empty" space is slowing photons down?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html

Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one."

Regarded to your question "Could the Hubble redshift be regarded as evidence that something in "empty" space is slowing photons down?"

I used this principle in order to solve the unsolved problem inphysics of the Pioneer anomaly depending on the Hubble's laws and the modified General relativity. I got an exact solution. see http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

My solution to Pioneer anomaly is agreed with your comment. Hubble redshift could be regarded as evidence that something in "empty" space is slowing photons down, that thing in my solution is the gravitational field produced by the mass density of the universe. After that reveiw my paper http://www.fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1272

I see on the news that the Higg's particle has been found. I see in various other statements that victory has been declared. Yet, what I read about what has been achieved, I don't see the Higgs particle being seen. I see reports of particles that are taken as indications that the Higg's particle must have existed without observation of it itself. In other words, the Higg's particle was not found. What was found were end particles that fit the prediction of a theory that includes the Higg's particle? This message is not meant to say that the Higg's particle does not exist. It is actually a questioning message. Is the existence of the Higg's particle assumed?

Yes, the existence of the Higgs boson is assumed since it can't really be seen directly. Same with many elementary particles. Ya can't ever see a quark or gluon but we have detectable effects that we attribute to the quarks and gluons. You can't really even see an electron directly but we can see tracks it leaves in bubble chambers, etc. So we know it was there. But the Higgs being neutral, would never leave tracks like an electron does so we have to rely on detecting its decay products. That was part of the big problem in discovering it; detecting the proper decay products that could only come from the decay of a Higgs boson.

I suppose it has been assumed in the same way that elements of the periodic table were assumed to exist after a theoretically correct but incomplete table was produced, but before all the elements were discovered by direct experimentation. The verification of the Higgs particle completes the Standard Model "table."

Thank you for responding. Still there is something uncomfortable feeling about the 'found' Higg's particle. It is probably due to my incomplete knowledge, but, for example:

"That was part of the big problem in discovering it; detecting the proper decay products that could only come from the decay of a Higgs boson."

Is it incorrect to interpret this as fullfillment of the conservation of energy. What I mean is is it saying the decay products' total energies add up to the theoretical energy of the Higg's particle. How do we know that reaching the level of energy expected for the Higg's particle establishes the existence of the Higgs particle? How is it known that that energy temporarily forms into the Higg's particle? If this is off the mark, you are invited to correct it so that no one is misled.

In response to your earlier message, I define mass in terms of distance and time. I propose that its units are those of inverse acceleration. I have come out and stated that I expect that the acceleration represented by mass is the acceleration of light. All of the results that I put forward for inspection by others come from that initial conclusion. That is why I said that I don't need the Higg's particle.

That is why I am seriously interested in whether or not the experimental evidence proves the existence of the Higg's particle or perhaps re-affirms that keeping count of energy totals verifies the conservation of energy? If the existence of the Higg's particle is known rather than assumed, that certainly changes my perspective on physics theory.

"I suppose it has been assumed in the same way that elements of the periodic table were assumed to exist after a theoretically correct but incomplete table was produced, but before all the elements were discovered by direct experimentation. The verification of the Higgs particle completes the Standard Model "table." ".

That is a good way of explaining it. My hesitation though has to do with 'unseen' particles that continue to not be 'seen' leaving me with a doubt feeling similar to when I read about accounts of 'hidden' variables or any proposed 'hidden' properties added on to physics theory to fill theoretical gaps.

I am not saying that I can prove that this practice is wrong. I am saying that it seems risky to me because if a theoretical gap is self-induced because of error, then solutions of a hidden nature may be covering over flaws. I just am not sure what to think about the reports so far. I will keep looking into it. Thanks for your help.

Since Gregory Chaitin dropped by to mention his new book (*Proving Darwin: Making biology mathematical*) -- let me quote an anecdote from it, concerning a young astrophysicist at the Institute for Advanced Study who proudly announced a discovery to Kurt Godel, who responded curtly, "I don't believe in empirical science; I only believe in *a priori* truths!"

The reason Gregory told the story is to point out that Darwin's theory -- which is the basis of modern biology -- has no mathematical theory (at least, none as compelling as we find in physics) to support it; it is solely backed by empirical evidence. So Godel has a point.

In rational, i.e., deductive, science, the mathematical theory drives the discovery. Rational conclusions are not made inductively (i.e., from empirical data alone), or else science could not be differentiated from philosophy.

This is why it is critical, to keep science objective, that we are able to separate mathematical theories and proofs from empirical evidence. It would be impossible otherwise, to objectively map elements of the theory to elements of experiment. This flaw in Bell's theorem (making an inductive judgment) is the theme of my essay ("The Perfect First Question.") We can only be reasonably sure that we have succeeded in answering questions of Nature, when we have validated our experimental results against the mathematical results of a closed logical judgment. The periodic table of the elements, the complete cataloguing of the Standard Model of particle physics, and the mathematically complete theory of relativity represent three such logically closed judgments.

"We can only be reasonably sure that we have succeeded in answering questions of Nature, when we have validated our experimental results against the mathematical results of a closed logical judgment."

Can a truly closed logical judgement include assumptions that themselves cannot be validated by experimental results. In other words, a well designed theory is constructed to model patterns in empirical evidence. Such a theory does not require that its own internal parts be true representations of properties of nature.

Pushing this question to its extreme: A pattern is observed in empirical evidence. The pattern is modeled by a mathematical equation. The equation can be formed free of all prior theoretical concepts. The equations success requires only the accurate portrayal of the pattern. The theorist is free to attach names to terms in the equation. He is free to imagine types of properties that seem suggested by the terms. The terms can be assigned units. The units do not have to pre-exist. They can be imaginary.

The model can succeed even with the inclusion of artifical properties and artificial units. Its success in reproducing the pattern in empirical avidence requires only that any ad-hoc units introduced also be canceled out and be absent in the results that reproduce the pattern. In a well constructed theory, this will happen automatically.

The usefulness of the theory may have been established, but its internal correctness with regard to answering nature's question, has not been established. It may be correct. It may be partially correct. It may be totally flawed in its internal interpretations. Yet it is expected to succeed in reproducing the very pattern that it was designed to accurately model.

Ok, thats enough. :) It sometimes seems that the longer I write for the purpose of further clarification, the riskier it becomes that I might instead be doing the opposite.

James, I think you ought to digest Roger Schlafly's essay for a viewpoint that largely agrees with yours. I see you've been there, but only to banter with Pentcho. I don't know how much you know about the Vienna school of logical positivism (which is what I assume Roger refers to when he labels himself a positivist); however, these were radical empiricists who included Ernst Mach.

I think it's an antiquated philosophy of science myself, and I favor Popper's opposing philosophy, which IMO ably accommodates scientific realism without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

That is, I don't see any means of validating "the truth" of data except by correspondence of formal language to physical result -- a method that Popper largely adapted from Tarski.

Yes, the assumption that the Higgs boson exists is from conservation of energy plus the detected decay products. IOW, they search for events with certain decay products then add up their detected energies and they find that there is a new boson at around 125 GeV. Its mass would be 125 GeV/c^2. It is all pretty standard particle physics.

I don't think that your definition of mass as inverse acceleration changes anything wrt whether the Higgs mechanism is required or not. But I will tell you that the c^2 appearing in E = mc^2 is shorthand for something other than the speed of light squared, IMHO.

"IOW, they search for events with certain decay products then add up their detected energies and they find that there is a new boson at around 125 GeV. Its mass would be 125 GeV/c^2. It is all pretty standard particle physics."

Do they find that there is a new boson or do they assume there is a new boson. Does the energy amount give that answer?

"I don't think that your definition of mass as inverse acceleration changes anything wrt whether the Higgs mechanism is required or not. But I will tell you that the c^2 appearing in E = mc^2 is shorthand for something other than the speed of light squared, IMHO."

That proposal of mine that mass is the inverse of the acceleration of light means that mass is defined by its effect upon the speed of light. Given that I use only the variation of the speed of light to redefine the fundamentals of physics theory, it does not tolerate the introduction of other causes.

The equations e = mc^2 takes an altered form when the speed of light is a variable. In any case, that c^2 is not accepted as a proportionality constant that can be dismissed or set to unity. My replacement equation is:

E_K = mv(sub c1)^2 (Delta v)/[v(sub c2)]

The c1 refers to an initial value for the speed of light. The c2 refers to the changed value of the speed of light. For general readers, the delta v is vc1 - vc2.

That (delta v)/[v(sub c2)] is the mathematical representation of the property we know as frequency.

I dealt in a different way with e = mc^2 in my current essay.

I don't expect this to make sense in this message. I just thought I would respond somewhat to the reason for c^2. And, to emphasize that wrong or right, there is work backing up most of what I say. Its a work in progress with no shared recognition by others.

As I said before all of the sub-atomic particles are assumed to exist since we can't really see them directly but from the decay products (particles) detected and evaluated, it can only be a new boson so there is no assumption for that. It can't be an elementary fermion. The total energy is not used for that. The assumption is that it is the Higgs boson since they can't yet tell if it is spin 0. If it turns out to be spin 1 or 2 then it is not the Higgs. And then we will have new physics to ponder!

For your theory, you have to ask yourself why is the mass of a proton much much greater than the mass of its individual parts? The mass of its 3 quarks is maybe around 10 MeV/c^2 while the mass of a proton is close to 1 GeV/c^2.

For your theory, you have to ask yourself why is the mass of a proton much much greater than the mass of its individual parts?

If it isn't caused by their velocities and the increase in mass due to velocity then I don't have an answer. That is a calculation that I haven't done yet. Don't know if it is reasonable or if it fits with empirical evidence. Sub-atomic and quantum properties have really slowed me down. I wish I knew what you know. I have to move through it step by step and only at an introductory level. Therefore, my first attempts will not be satisfactory for professionals. They just represent my needs. Maybe it is beyond me, I will see.

I think the proton's mass is due to the quarks "swimming" around in a condensate (medium) within the proton "bag" so their effective mass is much greater. I suppose it may be somewhat a velocity effect but probably not exactly how you are thinking about it. Plus some of the mass may be attributed to "spectator" quarks and gluons from the quantum vacuum. IMHO, mass for elementary particles always comes from interactions between massless entities.

This is a great day for physics! Detective "Higgsy Callahan", AKA "Dirty Higgsy" (remember the Clint Eastwood character of similar name?), has been on the trail of this perpicle for years and had a few things to say about the search:

Making sure the perpicles couldn't get away:

Higgsy: We're not just going to let you walk out of here.

Particles: Who's "we", sucker?

Higgsy: ATLAS, CMS and me.

As the trail got warmer, he thought it was chancy:

"I know what you're thinking: "Did we find five sigma, or only four?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement, I've kinda lost track myself. But being this is the LHC, the most powerful collider in the world, and would blow our mind clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well do ya, punk?"

And as he closed in for the "arrest", Dirty Higgsy said:

"Go ahead, make my day!"

Well, the Higgs did - today is the day! Congratulations to all the theorists, workers; and especially to you, Dr. Peter Higgs!

*However, things may be even more interesting, there are hints this isn't the fully expected standard Higgs. Ahh, keep feeling lucky, perps (and Stephen Hawking ...)

Thanks for a most informative thread. I am curious about the decay path from W to Higgs to bottom-anti-bottom quarks. How does this differ from charmonium, the production of charm-anti-charm quarks. As far as I know the existence of charmonium was not taken as proof that a Higgs existed. What is different about bottomonium?

Pardon my naivete! If as you say “The Higgs particle is "The Quantum of Ubiquitous Resistance."” what makes it a “particle”? And if “Space is never empty! Space is filled with a material that resists the motion of those particles.” is this “material” that fills space 'continuous'? And if it is not 'continuous' but is made up of discrete units, what exists between these discrete units? Empty space again?

We can say “something” has been found! But what we understand of what this “something” is, is a different question. Don't you think?

The Higgs particle is an excitation of the Higgs field just like an electron is an excitation of a Dirac field. The Higgs field only resists changes in motion (acceleration) otherwise particles would come to a stop wrt the field. Of course that can't be otherwise the Higgs field would violate Lorentz invariance. Well... since they most likely have discovered the Higgs, that means that space is filled with both a Higgs field and a Dirac field. It begs the question that why can't the Dirac field also resist changes in motion? I think it can.

2)Mustn't there be a 'medium' for a 'field' to exist? So what is the physical medium for the Higgs field? The Higgs bosons that the Higgs field produces when it gets excited? Isn't this like 'God creating Himself'? I think we have a paradox here!

3)Can the Higgs field and the Dirac field coexist and simultaneously fill physical space? Or these are two different manifestations of the same underlying substance? Can this substance be 'ether'?

4)Is this oversimplification fair? “Higgs for momentum, Dirac for energy”.

2. Chicken or the egg? Current thinking is that quantum fields are the most fundamental.

3. I don't see why the Higgs field and Dirac fields can't coexist. The other questions are just unknown at this time. You can call it ether if you wish.

4. No, it is not fair. Higgs mechanism is required to give mass to the heavy gauge bosons and to have a massless photon. The Dirac field with local gauge invariance produces all of electrodynamics so it is required for that. I believe that it also gives mass to fermions because the Higgs boson as an elementary spin 0 particle is too simple to give mass to fermions.

1)When you say “Lots of energy in a very small space” is this 'energy accumulation'?

2)“Quantum fields are most fundamental”. Answering my question with an even more perplexing idea does not answer my original question: What is the physical medium for a field? I think we have a paradox here brought on by the concept of a 'field' and by physicists claims for 'physical existence'. I do not expect a sensible answer here! Just an admission to this paradox.

3)If “Higgs mechanism is required to give mass ...” and since mass is associated with momentum, why it is not fair (in the broadest sense of that word) to associate Higgs with momentum? I am amusing here!

That is how; these experimental findings can be integrated in 5-Dimensional model of Universe.

Frank Wilczek in NOVA’s Nature of Reality Blog. has described in a separate post, Higgs Bosons as a constituent of standard model of physics. It brings out clearly the thought process behind Higgs Bosons. In his words;

That is how; these experimental findings can be integrated in 5-Dimensional model of Universe.

Frank Wilczek in NOVA’s Nature of Reality Blog. has described in a separate post, Higgs Bosons as a constituent of standard model of physics. It brings out clearly the thought process behind Higgs Bosons. In his words;

'The Higgs particle is The Quantum of Ubiquitous Resistance. I’m referring here to a universe-filling medium that offers resistance to the motion of many elementary particles, thus producing what we commonly think of as their mass.'

This indicates persistence of Ether in thought process of contemporary science. I thought interpretation of ‘Matter as Extended Substance' from French philosopher R. Descartes and ether has been discounted.

Another way of understanding nature consistence with standard model is to consider human intuition 'Space contains Energy' represent nature with 5-Dimensions. The five dimensions include 3 dimensions of space (3-D infinite continuum), and 2 dimensions of matter (Energy and time of 2-D Matter). The dimension time is mapped to one dimension (drift direction of particle). With this model, all type of particles – atoms, nucleus, elementary particles – moving at speed less than speed, photons – equals speed of light, neutrinos – capable of speed greater than light are explained. We don’t to attribute any characteristic to space, but as a container of energy. In addition gravitation, action at a distance etc are easily understood as characteristic of these objects. The cosmic observations (Expanding universe, Big Bang epoch, Background radiation) are integrated into this 5-D model of universe.

If we have to integrate experimental results connected with Higgs Bosons into 5-Dimensional model of the universe, both Higgs Bosons and Neutrinos carry space disturbance from one compilation of energy bearing particles to another. While Neutrinos represent singularity in space continuum of one type, Higgs Boson represents singularity of another type. The singularities in space are introduced by intense activity (Interaction between elementary particles).

In this sense, Higgs Boson’s are complimentary particles to Neutrinos.

The differences and similarities from Picophysics (with 5-Dimensional Universe) are;

1. Similarity: None of the particles from this class carries matter.

2. Similarity: Speed of light does not have relevance as limitation on observed speed

3. Difference: The energy flow is reverse than neutrino. In Neutrino energy flows along with displacement, for Higgs Boson it flows opposite to displacement

4. Difference: For same energy carrying capacity, the size of Higgs Boson is much larger than that of neutrino

5. Generation: Higgs Boson can only be generated when particles in motion collapse to a single point. Neutrino are generated inside the nucleus.

The newly discovered particle is looking for its place in standard model of science. But quantized space - is not amicable to human intuition. This will push abstractions in science a step beyond comprehension of non-physicists.

That is how; these experimental findings can be integrated in 5-Dimensional model of Universe. The intuition 'Space contains Energy' represent nature with 5-Dimensions. The five dimensions include 3 dimensions of space (3-D infinite continuum), and 2 dimensions of matter (Energy and time of 2-D Matter). The dimension time is mapped to one dimension (drift direction of particle. Higgs Boson’s are complimentary particles to Neutrinos.

The differences and similarities from Picophysics (with 5-Dimensional Universe) are;

1. Similarity: None of the particles from this class carries matter.

2. Similarity: Speed of light does not have relevance as limitation on observed speed

3. Difference: The energy flow is reverse than neutrino. In Neutrino energy flows along with displacement, for Higgs Boson it flows opposite to displacement

4. Difference: For same energy carrying capacity, the size of Higgs Boson is much larger than that of neutrino

5. Generation: Higgs Boson can only be generated when particles in motion collapse to a single point. Neutrino are generated inside the nucleus.

It is just a quick application of picophysics concepts to discovery of Higgs Bosons.

"God on the other hand deserves full credit, or blame."? Winterberg was perhaps not mocking too much when he argued that God is "impossible in Minkowski spacetime". I see God as well as spacetime something outside science, something that can neither be proved nor disproved.

Incidentally, my radio told me: The expression "God particle" originates from "this goddamned particle" in a paper which was modified by an editor.

One aspect of the Standard Model is that photons don't couple to the Higgs field at all, that is why they remain massless. I don't think the SM contains anything like a photon/Higgs interaction which would affect the photon's energy either, so I don't see how the Higgs condensate can have anything to do with Hubble redshift?

The effect of gravitational fields, dust, etc, certainly do redshift light by decreasing the photon energy, but remember, the photons themselves do *not* slow down. The only other way we know of that wavelength can be increased is by the expansion of space.

In quantum gravity research, the test for energy dependant arrival times of photons is based on the possibility of *dispersion* of high energy (gamma) photons, not of their "slowing down".

A global gravitational effect, which you seem to hint at Azzam, could produce a global redshift but would seem to necessitate also a global preferred frame. Would that violate Lorentz symmetry? But I must read your paper Azzam!

Photons do slow down or speed up in a gravitational field. According to Newton's emission theory of light, the acceleration of photons and cannonballs is the same. According to general relativity, the acceleration of photons is twice the acceleration of cannonballs:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Now of course , the higgs bosons are totally different. In fact they are just a fantasy from a team for an explaination of God.

The Bosons are the bosons and they are numerous ! The higgs bosons are not a door for informations conming from the infinite light. The physicality has its laws and all particules are from this God like you say. So the name, god particule, is just a publicity for the second part of the sciences community.Mr Higgs is not the probelm, the teams around him, yes.

Can we speak about sciences without always this business from the businessmen.They cause the chaos on this earth !!!

The “Higgs Particle” And Some Reflections...Yeah, Lederman called it the “God-Particle” but ‘Why’?

The “Higgs” has mass, namely 125.3 GeV. Therefore it is “MASSIVE”; if anyone contends that it is the particle of the “Origin of Mass” then what is the origin of the “Higgs”?

It seems by far more reasonable and logical to stipulate that mass less particles, or waves of light (eg. Photons) and some other wavicles (eg. Electrons and Positrons) account for the Origin of Mass of the Universe and its “contents”, eg. Galaxies, stars, and all other phenomena that can be seen, measured and so on and so forth.

It appears in hindsight that none other than Isaac Newton misled the world into materialism and atheism; because in his day, 1663 to 1669 Natural Philosophy (a.k.a., Physics) considered “Matter” (defined by its mass) to be the primary ingredient of the Universe.

Thru the work of Albert Einstein a concept emerged, the equivalence of Mass and Energy expressed by ‘S – T’. In addition, Einstein’s first paper in 1905 was a question:

“Does the inertia of a body depend on its Energy Content?”

Furthermore, Einstein’s original formula was, M = L / v2 which tell us where “Matter” or mass comes from, the more Light quanta is available, divided by the Speed of Light (now “ c2 ” ) the more mass (matter made of atoms) can be created...

A hundred years after Einstein the whole conception of physics, vis-a-vis the Universe has further changed. It is now recognized within the framework of Quantum Field Theory that the primary ingredient of the Universe is Space; with atomistic matter arising from space, which is not, and never was “empty”.

Science proves the “creation” without the need for the “Higgs Particle”, which is therefore better considered as a public-relations-exercise in procrastination.

H. Cerncic, M.A. Hons. (Qualif.)

PS: The author of this article acknowledges his debt to Nobel Laureate Prof. F. WILCZEK,and to Sir Roger Penrose and several other experts in the field. Many thanks!